If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I don't think FO people take gambles solely out of prue optimism as much as desperation.

This. The Hornets aren't doing what they're doing because the FO thinks it's better than it is. They're doing what they're doing because they have a limited option set and for the most part they are choosing the best options. Schwan and McNamara need to start popping some anti depressants before the podcasts because not only do they think signing Gordon was a terrible decision, they keep looking at it as the worst case scenario as if it the cap space is dead for the next 4 years.

1) What could Demps have done with that cap space this offseason? Nothing. Sure you might have signed some better mid level players but it's your stars that matter, so if there was zero chance the cap space would get you a star this year but say a 25% chance Gordon would be a star this year, you go with Gordon.

2) But what about next year? Through the magic of Rashard Lewis and other expirings the Hornets should be able to target a max player, but the odds are probably significantly less than 50% that they'll land even 1 max player, so what are the odds that they could land 2 max players if Gordon's salary slot were free? Again, if the odds are 25% that Gordon will produce you still have better odds rolling the dice on Gordon's health than getting a 2nd star in FA.

3) Gordon is not untradeable. He'll either be so injured that he'll have to retire and give cap relief, or some team will trade you expirings to take a chance on him themselves. He will not kill the cap for 4 years, he will only kill the cap for as long as the odds of Gordon producing are better than the odds of the FA market producing.

Pop some pills Ryan and Michael. You don't have to become shiny happy people, but you do need to stop sounding like a depressing broken record, especially when the worst case scenario is very unlikely to occur.

Demps has to believe that his medical staff is above average and he has to trust them when they tell him that they can rehab Gordon. Skepticism has no place there. Same has to go with believing that your coaches are above average talent evaluators, but math is math and 12-13 teams are below average when it comes to player development, training staff, etc. - yet every GM has to be optimistic and think his staff's are exceptional in that area.

I agreed with a lot of what this article says. But I do want to introduce a bit of a counter-point here.

This article assumes there is a great deal of difference between an above average training staff and a below average training staff. What if there is a rather small variability among training staffs (low standard deviations--they don't deviate from each other all that much)?

Michael, it's a bit like what you guys talked about in your last podcast--why would Eric Gordon rehab in LA when there's likely very little difference between rehab programs in LA and NOLA?

If, say, the middle 25 training staffs in the NBA are all more or less at the same level of competence (Phoenix being an outlier in a good way, and though it's possible the Hornets are an outlier in a bad way, let's assume not), does the optimism bias really apply to training staffs?

I agree that the optimism bias applies to the Gordon situation--we were optimistic Gordon would stay healthy for us when history suggests that's not likely to happen--but I think the training staff argument may be a bit of a stretch.

^ what about Dell's past actions makes you think he wasn't shopping Gordon around? He most likely did and didn't find anything he considered to be worth it.

Orlando said that Houston's targeting of Lin and Asik got in the way of them working up a deal for Dwight. I'm sure it got in the way of making a move for Gordon also. Who knows, Demps may have already had an understanding with Houston that got negated by OKC unexpectedly dumping Harden.

I disagree. IMO, None of the players you listed including Wall and Aldridge has the ability to transcend their respective teams into contention. They put up very nice stats but do not have the ability to control the game like a true franchise player can and will. Can they be very good players? Absolutely, but they lack the "it" factor. You can build with most of the guys and compete for a championship but I don't believe that you can build around them and be in contention.

Think of it like guys like Gasol who you can build around but he will never get you into contention. But if you build with him as a #2, he'd be a great asset on a championship contender. That's how I feel about guys like Aldridge and Wall.

Aldridge can control a game. Watched lots of games of him 2 seasons ago (he had injuries last year).

This. The Hornets aren't doing what they're doing because the FO thinks it's better than it is. They're doing what they're doing because they have a limited option set and for the most part they are choosing the best options. Schwan and McNamara need to start popping some anti depressants before the podcasts because not only do they think signing Gordon was a terrible decision, they keep looking at it as the worst case scenario as if it the cap space is dead for the next 4 years.

1) What could Demps have done with that cap space this offseason? Nothing. Sure you might have signed some better mid level players but it's your stars that matter, so if there was zero chance the cap space would get you a star this year but say a 25% chance Gordon would be a star this year, you go with Gordon.

2) But what about next year? Through the magic of Rashard Lewis and other expirings the Hornets should be able to target a max player, but the odds are probably significantly less than 50% that they'll land even 1 max player, so what are the odds that they could land 2 max players if Gordon's salary slot were free? Again, if the odds are 25% that Gordon will produce you still have better odds rolling the dice on Gordon's health than getting a 2nd star in FA.

3) Gordon is not untradeable. He'll either be so injured that he'll have to retire and give cap relief, or some team will trade you expirings to take a chance on him themselves. He will not kill the cap for 4 years, he will only kill the cap for as long as the odds of Gordon producing are better than the odds of the FA market producing.

Pop some pills Ryan and Michael. You don't have to become shiny happy people, but you do need to stop sounding like a depressing broken record, especially when the worst case scenario is very unlikely to occur.

A guy who knows more about the cap, front office decisions, and the NBA in general than any of us (Larry Coon) came on the podcast and basically called Eric Gordon untradeable and an albatross that a small market team can't afford to have on their cap as the new CBA continues to get more and more punitive.

I don't quite follow your argument, but to me it seems like you are saying that we couldn't have gotten anyone else, so why not Gordon. That I just can't agree with. Think about this. For the exact same amount of money, Demps landed two other free agents- Ryan Anderson and Robin Lopez. He might not have been able to get max guys or glamour guys, but he would have had room to get other pieces or stay as flexible as possible when teams were trying to dump. You can use cap space to be a part of a 3 or 4 way deal that gets you assets. You could take on a contract and get a pick or picks in return.

So, I am sorry, I just can't buy this argument. And 25% would imply that 1 out of 4 guys with Gordon's injury history overcome that history and remain relatively healthy. To me, it was closer to 10%. I can think of a few guys who were oft-injured and then overcame that, but I can think of dozens more that just kept getting injured.

Notice we are very "shinny happy people" when we talk about Davis or Anderson. Why? Because they deserve our optimism. This subject is a dark cloud, there is no way around it.

A guy who knows more about the cap, front office decisions, and the NBA in general than any of us (Larry Coon) came on the podcast and basically called Eric Gordon untradeable and an albatross that a small market team can't afford to have on their cap as the new CBA continues to get more and more punitive.

He said that based on the current conditions where he isn't playing. That is my problem with you and Ryan's view on this, y'all keep acting like he'll never play again. No structural damage suggests he's either forcing a trade, which is much better for his value than chronically injured, or he has something like tendonitis. He may not be AC Green but unless team doctors are really bad, he's not Brandon Roy either.

He said that based on the current conditions where he isn't playing. That is my problem with you and Ryan's view on this, y'all keep acting like he'll never play again. No structural damage suggests he's either forcing a trade, which is much better for his value than chronically injured, or he has something like tendonitis. He may not be AC Green but unless team doctors are really bad, he's not Brandon Roy either.

Agreed. If Gordon comes back and averages 22+ a game while playing good defense and getting others involved, he will be worth every single penny - even if he misses 10-15 games/year on average. Let's see how the rest of this year plays out...

So, I am sorry, I just can't buy this argument. And 25% would imply that 1 out of 4 guys with Gordon's injury history overcome that history and remain relatively healthy. To me, it was closer to 10%. I can think of a few guys who were oft-injured and then overcame that, but I can think of dozens more that just kept getting injured.

As much as we want to pair Eric Gordon's injury with past players' injuries -- it was Phoenix who signed him to that offer sheet. Thus, the Phoenix training staff must have told its front office that Gordon's knee isn't going to wreck to his career.

Gordon wanted the max and the team didn't offer it to him. What was wrong with that?

Because every year we see players that don't have Gordons' potential get overpaid. He had to know somebody would be willing to give EJ the max. All it takes is 1 team. It's one thing overpaying for potential it's another doing it for potential, with an awful injury history,n especially when that potential had an alleged problem playing for your team.

As much as we want to pair Eric Gordon's injury with past players' injuries -- it was Phoenix who signed him to that offer sheet. Thus, the Phoenix training staff must have told its front office that Gordon's knee isn't going to wreck to his career.

That's some optimism bias right there for ya.

Don't know if it's optimistic bias when you have the proven history to back it up though.

There's nothing TO update, I imagine. He's still rehabbing. Which continues to baffle me that he didn't bother rehabbing seriously before now. Just losing weight did nothing to help his leg get its strength.

Look, it sucks. I too am tired of him being hurt all the time and riding the bench. But if the guy is hurt (and no, I do not think he's faking it) and can't play, then guess what? He's hurt and can't play. No way around that.